Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace

[Carl M Kadie <kadie () cs uiuc edu>]

Short version:

I would like to see an on-line "seminar" in assertiveness training for
Cyberspace. I think it would help make computer media:
  1. Less intimidating for newcomers,
  2. More polite and effective, and
  3. Less likely be the target of authorities trying to outlaw rudeness.

If this sounds like a good idea to you, how can we create such as
"seminar"? (A good EFF project?)

Long version:

This weekend I made a mistake typical of newcomers. A few days after
joining a new mailing list, I posted terse critical response. What I
hadn't noticed was that this mailing list tries to be supportive.
Although my criticism was meant to be constructive, it was so terse
that it was read by many as a verbal attack. As a result I received
(what I perceived as) four harsh flames. If I had been a newcomer to
computer media, the incident likely would motivated me to quit that
list. It might have stopped me from posting to other lists and
newsgroups. It might have caused me to leave Cyberspace.

Instead, I replied to each flame as though it were constructive
criticism. Each reply was very polite. In each reply, I apologized for
writing a note that could easily be read as a verbal attack. I
explained that that was not my intent and explained my constructive
intent. All the "flamers" accepted my explanation. I believe that most
of the readers of the list have, too.

The other thing I avoided was flaming back. Rather than apologizing for
writing an ambiguous note, I could have just said:
  "All the criticism in my note is valid. If you and the mailing list
  are too paranoid and sensitive to accept valid criticism, it's your
  problem not mine."
Who knows, I might even have "won" ensuing flame debate. But I would
have lost my original goal, namely to have my constructive criticism
taken seriously by the list.

I believe I responded effectively because years and years ago I took a
half-day on-the-job seminar in assertiveness training. I believe
others would benefit from such training. Would anyone be interested in
putting an "assertiveness training (AT) for Cyberspace" document
together?

I've tried to remember what I've learned, but my recollection is poor.
Here are some of the strategies I do use everyday (some of which
probably come AT, some of which I have made up on my own):

* One non-confrontational way to accept criticism X is to reply
  "Perhaps I did X".

* Try do distance the issue or problem from people. For example, don't
  say "*your* argument is stupid", say "the argument could be
  improved by ...."

* Use phrases such as "I believe", "it seems to me", "in my opinion",
  etc. to show that you are open to the possibility that you might be
  wrong.

* Assume the best, not the worst. When you receive criticism,
  generally assume that it is constructive.

* If a note of yours is misinterpreted (someone assumes the worst
  rather than the best), apologize for writing an ambiguous note.

* When you make a mistake, admit it right away. This 1) helps everyone
  get to the truth faster 2) gives people confidence that you can be
  trusted not to argue for a position that you know is wrong 3) shows
  that you are open minded 4) means that the discussion can quickly
  move past your mistake.

* Never let a public "slander" go unchallenged. To challenge a "slander"
  minimizes the damage it causes. To let it go, maximize the damage it
  causes.

* Sandwich criticism between compliments.

* It is impolite to tell people they are impolite.

* Don't reply right away. Give yourself time to cool down.

* Before you send note, read it again.

* Before you reply to a note, read it again.

* Try to end discussions on good terms with everyone, even those who
  (you perceived as) flaming you. This usually means replying,
  very politely, to flames.

* Don't try to debate irrelevant personal insults. Either 1) ignore them or
  2) just quote them in a reply and then ignore them.

* Many people don't understand debating terms such as "_ad homin_",
  "strawman", "nonsequester", "fallacy" etc. so don't use them in
  replies. Instead, explain the fallacy from first principles or by
  analogy.

* Generally don't expect anyone to just take your word for something
  because you are an authority. If you are really are an authority,
  you should be able to make the case.

* Don't expect people to do outside reading or research in support of
  *your* argument. If some outside material is key to your argument,
  quote it. (And then save it, so you can quote it again without
  typing it again).

In my experience these strategies are effective 90% of the time in
either creating a meeting of minds or creating a respectful agreement
to disagree. 10% of the cases are just hopeless (because of the other 
person in the discussion, I believe).

So ....

Does this seem like something that could help newcomers?
Anyone interesting to taking charge?
Can you suggest other good aphorisms/strategies?
Are there strategies that I don't know about, for example,
  strategies for responding to the extra attention that women
  on the Net receive?

- Carl Kadie

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie () cs uiuc edu =